Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


RSPB says only protect the species that really need it

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 November 2008
SCOTLAND'S leading bird charity has argued against plans to use laws to give extra protection to a long list of species.
RSPB Scotland said excessive use of legal powers could make it an offence to cut down a hedge containing an empty nest.

The Scottish Government is considering giving 16 bird species, ranging from the osprey to the kingfisher, extra protection
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It could make it an offence to disturb their nests, even when they were empty, or to harass the birds.

But Keith Morton, the species policy officer at RSPB Scotland, said the use of legislation should be limited to those species of birds that really need it, such as the golden eagle.

"We would only expect a small number of species to be added," Mr Morton said.

"We think it's very important not to over-legislate.It would be ridiculously over-protective – if you wanted to remove a hedge in your garden, you couldn't do it if there was a nest in it."

He added: "It's simply a matter of principle that you shouldn't legislate unless there's need to do so."

However, he said it would be beneficial to use legal powers to protect some species, particularly the golden eagle.

"There is quite significant persecution of golden eagles in Scotland and one of the ways you could do it legally was to destroy the nest sites when they were not in use," he said.

And he thinks the harassment rules could help to stop the disruption of roosting sites used by hen harriers.

The Scottish Government is considering adding the golden eagle, osprey, capercaillie, goldeneye, honey buzzard, chough, goshawk, kingfisher, barn owl, hen harrier, red kite, snowy owl, marsh harrier, merlin and peregrine falcon to schedules 1a and a1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

The legislation was amended under the Nature Conservation Act 2004 but so far it has only been used for one bird, the sea eagle.

The Scottish Government said in its consultation document that it wanted to add at least the golden eagle and osprey.

But Mr Morton said although the golden eagle was a "no-brainer", he was not so sure about the need to include the osprey.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "The reason for having that full list on there is to allow us to consult with different organisations about the species and then eventually come up with the right list."

He added: "Now that we have the legislation in place, it's important that we use it… The consultation is a response to pressure from outside the government to do so."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 November 2008 10:56 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 29/11/2008 13:18:23
The problem is not what is or isn't on the list. The legislation is too cumbersome and, in some places too broad, other places too restricted. Our wildlife and plants do require protection but I'm not convinced the various acts do the job. The legislation is difficult to enforce and, even when it is enforced, it is often difficult to get a conviction.

Even when a conviction is secured, those ultimately responsible get away scot-free while their employees take the rap and the penalties are usually out of context.

Most wildlife crime is committed to further shooting or building interests and, as the potential profits outweigh the financial penalties, it is a simple balance sheet calculation. Crimes of this nature require relevant penalties - banning firearms on a shooting estate for instance, or revoking planning consents for development sites.

I'm afraid the current laws do little more than ensure that the various government and local government agencies can continue to build their own fiefdoms and power bases whilst foisting unnecessary procedures and expense on the 95%+ of the population that would never dream of doing anything to harm our wildlife.
2

Antoine,

Glen Atholl 29/11/2008 19:00:49
Jacqueline is quite right.
Estate owners and operators publicly condemn their employees for killing protected species. I have never seen any reference to an employee being fired. I have never seen any report of the estate, company or landowner, being prosecuted.
Unlike, for instance, an offence committed even inadvertently under Health and Safety legislation where companies can face significant fines and possible jail sentences for employees/directors.
Some of these offences seem to be committed with poisons that it is illegal to own, and that were banned many years ago.
The police are most reluctant to take any action at all, having gone to school with the gamekeepers and grovelled to the lairds.
Now, if the penalties were real, say forfeiture of the estate and all properties belonging to the landlord more attention might be paid to the law.
This may be severe, but is consistent with the laws relating to drug dealing where it is argued that the criminal should not profit from their crimes.
Unfortunately, not only are these criminals above the law, but are consulted before any law is enacted viz. the feeble review of snaring.
3

ignorant townie?,

Scotland 01/12/2008 16:46:07
An alarm bell is ringing here....the RSPB are quite right...most species apart from birds of prey dont need this kind of "out of season" protection.

It may just be a matter of belts and braces here by civil servants but lets be careful that the gamekeepers and landowners who are furious at being caught out with their criminal raptor killing activities, dont try to use such legislation to keep people off their land..

Theres enough shameful horse trading going on -launches of anti poaching police initiatives as a sop to the very people who are killing our wildlife.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.